Muslim Low Self-Esteem
Martin Amis talks about it in an interview with the LATimes' Josh Getlin, and sounds the alarm that, as Getlin paraphrases it, "Fanatic, murderous ideologues cannot be ignored or dealt with in 'good faith,' whether they took root in Russia 60 years ago or thrive today in the Middle East." In Amis' words from the interview:

"Nobody in the West gave a damn about Islam on Sept. 10, 2001…. The Islamist ideology is that we're trying to destroy them. But we have no view one way or another. We're not at all obsessed about them. We really don't care. And yet there's this wounded narcissism in the Islamic world, because they want everything to be about them."

Those feelings, he suggested, are rooted in the fact that Islam has been subordinate to the West since the 13th century, and "there is this bewilderment about why God is rewarding the infidels." That bewilderment has now led to unrepressed rage.

"We respect Islam, the donor of countless benefits to mankind, and possessor of a thrilling history," Amis wrote in "The Age of Horrorism." "But Islamism? No, we can hardly be asked to respect a creedal wave that calls for our own elimination….

Islamic societies aren't likely to produce the kinds of minds that would combat this sort of thing, suggests Henry Porter in a piece in The Guardian:

By the admission of the Arab Human Development Report, published in Cairo in 2002, Arab societies are crippled by the lack of political freedom and knowledge. As Pervez Hoodbhoy, a celebrated Muslim physicist, commented: 'High-quality, mind-opening education is virtually non-existent. Half of Arab women cannot read or write. The entire Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth the number that Greece translates... in the thousand years since the reign of Caliph al Ma'mun, the Arabs have translated as many books as Spain does in just one year.'

And, as Porter writes earlier in the piece, we in the West are too busy bending over backwards to welcome those who hate us and want us dead -- or at least beaten up a little:

Imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury or any senior Anglican clergyman giving a sermon which suggested that homosexual men should be thrown off a mountain; that they were no better than filthy dogs. Imagine another priest rising in another church to preach that children should be hit for not praying, that women were deficient, should walk behind men and only go out with their man's permission. Consider what the reaction would be if a third joined in by saying all Jews were born liars.

...It's important to understand that while this was not a portrait of the whole Muslim Britain, it represents a significant part which cannot be ignored. The Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, where much of the programme was filmed, has the equivalent status of a cathedral and it was here that the clerics felt able to speak in this truly shocking way. Given the events last week, it's worth remembering that one cleric in the film suggested that it would be no tragedy if a Muslim soldier serving for the British armed forces in Afghanistan was beheaded.

Actually, the impact of this film did not come from any direct revelations about terrorism, but simply from the loathing and violence of the language used by these preachers about the 'kuffar' or infidel: i.e. the rest of British society. With the exception of the BNP, there is no grouping, community or party in these islands that permits itself to express such hatred. This hatred, so often accompanied by acute sense of persecution, has become a dangerous habit and a very great threat to our entire society.

Again, I stress the majority of Muslims wish to live peacefully and integrate into British society. This was emphasised by the Policy Exchange report last week which was written by three researchers, two of whom have Muslims backgrounds. 'The majority of Muslims,' says the report, 'feel they have as much, if not more, in common with non-Muslims in Britain as with Muslims abroad.' Nearly two- thirds of Muslims would prefer to send their children to a mixed state school, compared with the 35 per cent who would prefer to use Islamic schools. And well over a third agree that one of the benefits of modern society is the freedom to criticise other people's religions or political views, a much higher proportion than I would ever have guessed.

It is a shrewd and balanced study that needs careful reading. 'By treating Muslims as a homogenous group,' it says, 'the government fails to see the diversity of opinions among Muslims.' So while 84 per cent of Muslims say they have been treated fairly in our society, 75 per cent of young Muslims want women to wear the veil, one in eight expressed some admiration for al-Qaeda and 40 per cent want to live under Sharia law.

The thing I fear most is the growth of an alternative account of reality among radicalised youth, a parallel truth almost uncontested within British Muslim society. The rest of us don't oppose it because either we think it isn't our business or we suffer from the mistaken belief that Jade Goody's alleged racism is where the real struggle lies, an error of the multicultural age.

If (supposedly peace-loving) Muslims don't come out loud and clear in opposition to killing in the name of the religion, the way I see it, they're accessories to murder for keeping silent.

If atheists were murdering or threatening to murder anyone who didn't live rationally, I'd be working my ass off against them. There are millions of Muslims in the world. Maybe a handful or two handfuls come out against violence in the name of the religion. That's not fucking good enough.

Of course you know most Germans weren't Nazis. Der Furher built the Autobahn. Evil is afoot in the world, and it carrys a Koran. Denial of the existance of the spirit of evil muddies the water of our present peril. So 80% think that 9/11 was just desserts. Forgive me for being suspicious of the other 20%. Perhaps they're smart enough not to say what they think?

Casca
at February 4, 2007 12:25 PM

If atheists were murdering or threatening to murder anyone who didn't live rationally, I'd be working my ass off against them.

You've made a common mistake, Luke. There's no atheist creed for murder. That's what I was talking about. Because somebody is a nonbeliever in a diety doesn't mean they're taking any direction from other non-believers. And I'd actually direct you to Roman Genn's comment from the other day (http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/02/the_mad_russian.html) that actually, they do have a religion in North Korea, and it's enforced worship of Kim Jong Il.

Muslims have been murdering innocents since before the United States was formed.

Europe should have wiped these bastards off the planet when they had the chance.

Now, all we have are a bunch of liberals who want to invite them in, force us to adapt to their culture and make excuses for the murders they perform in the name of islam. Throw the bastards OUT!

SpareChange
at February 4, 2007 2:10 PM

There's this wounded narcissism in the Islamic world, because they want everything to be about them.

It's not just Islam. All religions are like this. Religions can't survive unless someone is trying to destroy them. It justifies their continued existence, and indulges their persecution complex.

Certainly the Christian upbringing I had was like that. They taught us to think that every TV commercial, every musical recording, every piece of legislation, every action of every man, woman and child was either for The Lord for Satan. I'm sure those poor children in the Middle East -- and Middle America -- are being told similar things.

It took me a long time to break free from the false dichotomy I had been conditioned to believe. But eventually I realized that most things in life just don't relate to most other things in life. The world is a huge, diverse place and there are a lot of different motivations out there. To interpret the world's actions as a reaction to your silly belief system is the height of narcissism.

Islam and Christianity do have one thing in common: they both need to be told to get over themselves.

Gary S.
at February 5, 2007 8:22 AM

"Islam and Christianity do have one thing in common: they both need to be told to get over themselves."

They also have an important difference. When you tell Christians (or Jews, Hindus etc) to get over themselves they don't go on murderous rampages. People who lampoon or merely critique religions other than Islam are not routinely killed or forced into hiding.

winston
at February 5, 2007 9:39 AM

Dear Amy,

The timing of your personal vendetta against the Arab world could not be better for the warmongers in Washington who are now rattling their swords in an effort to strengthen the fortress of a lame duck who needs another war to preserve his grip on our nation.

I wish I were writing you a love letter: but duty calls. I'm glad that the weekly where I now write does not carry your syndication - and this is only because The Zephyr doesn't have an advice column or a gossip column. It's mainly political, and politics is not your strong suit.

There are people who oppose affirmative action for the same reason you are rousing the rabble against the Arab world. The argument in favor of affirmative action is the same as the argument in favor of letting the muslims have the pool for an hour.

Perhaps an excessive show of tolerance and love is what's needed to counterbalance the fact that the arab population in this country has been used as a test case for the draconian actions of a totalitarian regime: the regime of George W. Bush.

Believe, it is difficult to go to bat for the people we have wronged, especially when they are still trashing out at you: my website has been attacked and defacements have been attempted by Iranian students who don't seem to understand that
I oppose the Bush regime as much as they do.

It's important to understand that the leadership of the Mullahs in Iran was allowing a gradual liberalization of society right up until out invasion of Iraq.

Islam means peace, and it is one of the religions of Abraham, the same Abraham who ultimately did not sacrifice his son, in spite of the struggle he had to endure in order to understand the true word of his god. And the word of the god of Islam is peace. If we are interest in the same, then we would do well to extend an extra effort to remind them, by our actions and words.

No it doesn't. It means "submission". Muslims have been forcing kafir to submit to sharia long before the birth of either George W. Bush or the United States. Friction between the U.S. and Islam goes all the way back to the Barbary Coast War.

winston
at February 5, 2007 1:15 PM

You chose a bad example, Winston, because the Barbary Pirates, who the US fought, were not Islamic leaders. From Wikipedia:

Since the 17th century, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, although nominally governed by the Islamic Ottoman Empire, had been largely independent Muslim states, run by military strongmen and financed by plunder, tribute, and ransom.

And they were not governed by sharia law, which in theory is no different that the Quaker concept of "gospel order", except that the Quaker model is based on the concept of living as the disciples did in the book of acts:

Islam DOES INDEED mean peace, and here's a little greeting from the former president of Iran -
who managed to keep his position until the provocations of the Illegal Bush Regime:

Robin Cook, former foreign secretary under Tony Blair warned that treating Iran as a political monolith would have dangerous consequences: well, dangerous for all except the power elite that relies on the dominance on the oil cabal.

David Roknich

DOGSPOT

ps - is AOL the best you could do for a service provider? how does my site look in their browser?

In the United States most Arabs are NOT Muslims and most Muslims are NOT Arabs.

Iranians are also not Arabs.

winston
at February 5, 2007 2:07 PM

The Barbary pirates justified their taking of kafirs for ransom and the demand of tribute from the U.S. with the Koran.

"no different that the Quaker concept of "gospel order",

Are Quakers sentenced to execution for renouncing their faith? How many writers are dead or in hiding because they insulted Quakers? websearch the word "Dhimmi" No different... puhleeze.

And again no, the word "Islam" means "submission". the Arabic word for peace is "Salaam"

winston
at February 5, 2007 2:24 PM

Thanks, Winston...I'm on deadline, and a bit behind, so I can't comment substantively today. The notion that we could submit and they'd give up on the idea of converting everybody to Islam and instilling sharia law is just silly. And why should we? If they don't like how we do things here, they should stay in Saudi Arabia or wherever they are.

I've had AOL since 1992 or 1993, and I have it for the same reason I've had Macs since 1984. It's easy. I could go through some slow, web-based e-mail program...but why would I? When I'm in a pinch, I have dialup AOL as backup for $10 a month. Rather important. Also, I wouldn't give up e-mail addresses I've had for more than a decade.

Islam Does Not Mean Peace
Islam only means peace to Muslims who blindly submit.

To Christians Islam means war, persecution and death.

The Qur'an says: "Fight and slay the pagans [Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Surah 9:5)

Seems quite a few Muslims are following suit, huh?

Somehow, I don't think the answer is blowing them kisses and sending flowers.

I am against all irrational belief in god, and the divisiveness and hate and anti-science legislation it promotes, but when your religion condones murdering non-believers, you fly right to the top of my religious bullshit shit list.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”

Matthew 10:34.

Quotes like this, along with the history of the crusades ought to go a long way toward securing peace with our Persian brothers.

Don't you think we owe them one for translating, thus preserving, the remains of the library of Alexandria? That last comment was suggested to me by a former employee of the NSA - fortunately, not all the employees of our evil government are themselves evil, which is most likely why we are not already bombing Iran.

Bombing the cradle of civilization is a bad idea.

Most Americans want to get out of Iraq immediately - let's not not procede with the mentality of an ox, and charge headlong in a blind rage.

Where did I post that I want to bomb or invade Iran? Where in my posts do you see support for the Iraq war?

I can dissapprove of Bush's policies without being blind to the danger posed by aggressive Islam. Why are you not able to do so?

"Don't you think we owe them one for translating, thus preserving, the remains of the library of Alexandria?"

Owe them what exactly? Should we give up freedom of speech as payment? Separation of church and state? Women's equality? Which enlightenment values are you willing to put on the table to pay the bill?

I ask again, is there any other modern religion that fairly routinely kills or chases into hiding it's critics and apostates? Did you websearch the word "dhimmi"?

winston
at February 5, 2007 8:18 PM

Ahem,

As I said to Amy, this is a bad time to exacerbate our conflicts with the arab world.

As a matter of fact, it might be a good idea for us to make a little extra effort to accomodate them: we're big enough to show a little understanding.

And your question "Should we give up freedom of speech as payment?" has been answered by the Bush administration that must really be enjoying your attacks on Islam.

We most certainly have paid. The Bill of Rights has been shredded already in the name of a holy war waged on Islam by Bush and his alleged followers of Jesus of Nazareth....
as the quote from Matthew proves, other religions could easily read the "sacred text" of Christianity as a book written by warmongers who advocate the destruction of apostates.

Count how many times the word "apostate" appears in the Bible ... and what follows it?

My point is this...

Peace is the way.

If you read the words of Khatami in my earlier post, and think about what effect our incursions have had in ALIENATING Islam, perhaps you will also consider about how we might improve the situation with a few concilliatory actions, rather than with very expensive weapons...
which, by the way, are the major export of the state of California - far exceeding marijuana in total dollar value.

Sound to me like giving the Muslims an hour in the pool is a bit much for Ms Alkon to sacrifice in the name of World Peace. But I suppose "winston" wasn't around for the post last month that triggered her wrath against the Muslim world -:)

Now look at my name -
David (suggested by the family doctor named Cohen)
Roknich (Serbian - say no more)

It is common sense and reason that gives rise to my views of our need to make Peace with the Muslims - and not on the terms of Bush's buddy Prince Bandar or his business partner Salim Bin Laden - brother of Osama.

The fact that mere criticism of Islam "exacerbates our conflicts with the arab world" says everything about the primitivism of that religion. I criticize the primitivism of other religions all the time. It's not intimated by Christians, as it was by Imelda on the Burqini entry, that I would be murdered for my critical remarks. Christians merely say I'm rude -- or simply try to debate me back (which they really can't, since I'm saying, "Hey, let's see some evidence of this god you base your life around.")

Here, from The New York Times, is why your position makes zero sense. Ayaan Hirsi Ali says:

They have no alternative message. There is no active missionary work among the youth telling them, do not become jihadis. They do not use media means as much as the jihadis. They simply — they’re reactive and they don’t seem to be able to compete with the jihadis. And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn’t meant for this context.

The Dhimmi is the Arabic term that refers to its non-Islamic embracing population that has the ignominious dishonor of living in Islamic conquered lands. In a similar manner to the Jewish reference to a non-Jew as being a goy, so too the term dhimmi refers to non-Muslims. However unlike the Jewish term, goy, and much more important, the dhimmi is a distinctly subjugated second class non-citizen almost slave who is subjected to dictatorial deprivation of any legal and human rights since he is a non-Muslim permanent resident in a Muslim state.

Dhimmi is also the name of a book written by Bat Ye'or, a pseudonym, of a woman who grew up in Egypt as a British citizen and observed first hand the Islamic treatment of non-Muslims. Based on serious research, Dhimmi was first published in French in 1971, translated into English in 1985, later into Hebrew and Russian, Dhimmi is a must reading for anyone seriously desiring an understanding of Middle-East politics and the rationale of the Arab mentality.

The first part of the book describes the state of affairs of the dhimmi, the basis and development for dhimmitude in Islam, and the relationship of the jihad, the war to conquer territory for Islam to the status of dhimmi.

Throughout earliest Islamic history, the conquered peoples by advancing Muslim armies were given the choice of either converting, being killed, or living as a conquered people, a dhimmi. These subjugated people were suspended in time and space, for dhimmitude meant being barely tolerated in your dispossessed land.

Both Jews and Christians alike suffered the ignominious life of having their fate decided upon the whim of despotic rulers. Although a legal definition of the dhimmi exists, that they must pay various taxes and tolls, that they must live a second class life and give deference to their Muslim neighbors, much of their tragic existence depended on the whims of despotic rulers and frenzied Arab mobs who denied them even the little that was given to them through Islamic law.

In 622 CE when Muhammad began his systematic conquering of pagan Arab populations and territories in the Arab desserts and peninsulas, he set up a precedent of conversion, death or servitude. Mixing war and religion, he utilized and abrogated relationships with non-Muslims to gain political and eventual territorial gains. A shrewd politician, Muhammad took advantage of non-belligerency pacts to attack and subjugate populations. In 628, after a long siege of Khaybar, lasting a month and a half, the inhabitants surrendered under terms of a treaty known as the dhimma. According to this agreement Muhammad allowed the Jews living there to continue to cultivate the land on the condition that they cede to him half of their produce, but he reserved the right to cancel the agreement and expel them whenever he desired. This became the prototype of all future subjugations. Hence making agreements and then breaking them to gain political gains became a hallmark of Muslim armies.

Surah 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

I'll translate for you: submit or die. That clear enough?

Yes, there are numerous warlike Christian sects, but they are at least in clear contravention of the spirit of their own religion. Islam is warlike in it's essence.

Todd Fletcher
at February 6, 2007 10:01 AM

I have unplugged your newsfeed from my website.

You and "winston" make John Bolton look like a real diplomate, and I'm certain your beating of the war drums will help improve your chummy relation with "Tammy Bruce" and the FOX dis-information network.

It is indeed possible to just keep pulling more and more google quotes out of the hat in your attempt to prove that Islam is a warlike religion.

Your words speak for themselves, and sound like the "news" releases on the website of Blackwater Security - they would like to portary the "threat" situation in a light that will improve their cash flow.

Yes, this is a bad time for your "John Bolton" approach to the Luslim world, and you are playingright into the hand of the corrupt Bush administration that need warrior like youself on the tabloid rack to keep reminding people in every possible way that the Muslims are the enemy.

And how much has Amy Alkon actually written?
the extensive use of quotation in the attacks against Muslims really casts doubt on your personal research. Do you ever speak to people from Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran? Do you know anyone who has gone to these countries. I have. And I can speak intelligently about their view of the world, which is not something out of a comic book or dimestore novel.

In atmosphere of narrowmindedness and hatred that you are cultivating here on this "advice" column,
you problem would be right in line with our brains of Homeland Security who might lock someone up for three years for merely talking to a person from Iraq or Iran.

I had an interesting discussion with Robert Bly just days before he headed to Iran for a cultural visit. He's been re-discovering some of their oldest poetry and translating it: their literary treasures are thousands of years old. By merely demonstrating a bit of respect for their culture and their people we can overcome the _diplomatic_ obstacles that are indeed being exacerbated by popular writers like yourself.

I don't think you realize how irresponsible you are, especially since you claim to offer useful advice to an audience that may not even know what the word "exacerbate" means.

"It is common sense and reason that gives rise to my views of our need to make Peace with the Muslims"

No, it is your willfull ignorance of what Islam is really all about and your hyperbolic hatred (as opposed to reasoned criticism)of the Bush administration that gives rise to your views.

winston
at February 6, 2007 8:00 PM

Saying you're rational and actually being rational are too different things.

My dad sent me a packet of the Muslim hate rags from Detroit. Scary stuff. Pretending everyone is about handing flowers out and singing kumbayah won't mean a shit when they come with the machete to take your head off.

They also have an important difference. When you tell Christians (or Jews, Hindus etc) to get over themselves they don't go on murderous rampages.

I can think of a few abortion clinic workers who would disagree with you on that point, if they could do so from their graves.

There may be fewer Christian terrorists than Islamic ones, but they both suffer from the same sickness: that their beliefs are the only correct ones, and that violence is justified against those who do not subscribe to them.

Gary S.
at February 6, 2007 11:18 PM

I notice that Gary, above, has posted a bit a balance that has lomg been lacking here.

Too bad Hunter S. Thompson isn't still alive: his final question was "Where is Hilter when we need him most". The point being that Saddam Hussein was a lame substitute. The problem is that people who manufacture bombs want to use them. And more bombs are manufactured in California than anywhere else in the world. Who should we bomb? Ahminejad's own poeple would like to bomb him, except for the incomvenience of the fallout - and the Iranian bloggers are more interesting than you because they actually write their own material - and they are literate - in a foreign language - your native tongue. Have you tried Farsi?

I'm not nearly as worried about the symitar of injustice as I am about the radioactive lackeys of Big Brother Bush, who happen to be located in Kalifornia where they have no choice but to whore out their opinions to eek out a tolerable living -
which must include a proper hairstyle for the spoiled little dog. Fuck the poor - my dog needs a perm. That's what LA is about.

What the dictator needs most is perpetual war -
just keep beating those drums. You need to, in order to continue to live in that lousy city.

How does it feel to be an honarary graduate of the John Bolton School of Dip(shit)lomacy, Amy?

As for Gary above, I've made this point before. But, "fewer"? Yes, there's one Tim McVeigh, about three guys who kill abortion doctors, and maybe 12 ELFers (Earth Liberation Front-ers). The comparison to the number of Muslims being spawned as terrorists is vast.

David, weren't you taking me off your reading list? For a guy who thinks I'm horrible for pointing out the truth, you're spilling an awful lot of time and type.

Here you are a guy supposedly pleading for reasonableness, and you go over the edge like Thelma and Louise with this one: "the radioactive lackeys of Big Brother Bush, who happen to be located in Kalifornia where they have no choice but to whore out their opinions to eek out a tolerable living?"

Huh?

I'm not quite sure who you're talking about, but if it's me, I'm a wee bit harder to peg than that.

I was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review as saying, "I loathe John Kerry, but I'd vote for an autistic monkey before I vote for that fundamentalist, anti-science George Bush." A number of their readers dropped their subscriptions because of my quote. That was fine with me, since my column was running in the now defunct Pittsburgh alt weekly, Pulp.

I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but a fiscal conservative and social libertarian who was against the Iraq war, but for going in and flattening the mountains of Afghanistan to catch Osama, and who was thrilled to vote for Schwarzenegger twice. He's doing a good job, and he's one of the only politicians I've ever heard admit he's made mistakes (on his last inauguration night, for example).

Our state makes bombs and thus we want to use them? Where does that even remotely approach logic?

What is absolutely hysterical is that this guy is preaching "tolerance" and "love" (when he really seems to mean bend over) and he goes on a completely bitter, mean-spirited rant about how horrible and selfish people who live in LA are. Wow, way to undermine yourself.